V-JX 

£? Q-j ' ■ 

FT MEPDE c > s 

GenColl - ' ■ ■■■■ - ■ ^ ' ' 

L. . . . || 5" j| 

I] LU ry ... M }| 

MEMORANDUM 

ON THE LAW AND THE FACTS 

IN THE MATTER OF THE CLAIM OF CHINA AGAINST MEXtCO 

FOR LOSSES OF LIFE AND PROPERTY 

SUFFERED BY CHINESE SUBJECTS 

AT TORREON 

ON MAY 13, 14 AND 15, 1911. 


PREPARED BY 

WILFLEY A BASSETT. 

(ENGLISH A SPANISH) 

American Book A Printing Co.— Awe. San Franciaco No. as.— Mexico, 0. F. 


V 




SB 7 


MEMORANDUM 


ON THE LAW AND THE FACTS 

IN THE MATTER OF THE CLAIM OF CHINA AGAINST MEXIC O 

FOR LOSSES OF LIFE AND PROPERTY 

SUFFERED BY CHINESE SUBJECTS 

AT TORREON 

ON MAY 13, 14 AND 15, 1911. 


PREPARED BY 

WILFLEY & BASSETT. 


(ENGLISH & SPANISH) 



) 


STATEMENT OF FACTS 

- 

(Copy of report made by the firm of Wiifley & Bas- 
sett to His Excellency, Minister Chang Yin 
Tang, on the 13th of July, 1911). 


Sir: 

We have the honor, in compliance with your request, to 
submit herewith a report on the facts relating to the injuries in- 
flicted upon Chinese subjects by Mexican citizens at the city of 
Torreon, State of Coahuila, on the 14th and 15th of May of this 
year. 

The following statement is based upon the results of the in- 
vestigation made by our Mr. Bassett in person, who visited 
Torreon within a few days after the massacre, and upon the res- 
ults of investigations made by certain other responsible persons 
who were in Torreon when the massacre took place. 

Torreon is a prosperous railroad and commercial center of 
about 35,000 inhabitants, and is located in the southwestern part 
of the State of Coahuila. 

Before the 15th of May, 1911, there was at this place a Chinese 
colony which numbered between six and seven hundred. By reas- 
on of their industry and thrift the Chinese in Torreon had become 
prosperous. The colony here was peaceful and law-abiding, as 
Chinese always are in every part of the world. 




— 4 — 


Many of the Mexicans in and about Torreon resented the ex- 
istence of this large and prosperous Chinese colony in that com* 
munity, and a movement was started against them by certain 
agitators who appealed to the prejudices of the ignorant people of 
the community. 

On September 16, 1910, a speech was made by a Mexican in 
which the presence of such a large number of Chinese was criti- 
cised, and, after this speech there was a demonstration against 
the Chinese in Torreon. Houses were stoned and windows were 
broken, but no injury was done to the persons of the Chinese at 
this time. 

On May 5, 1911, a speech was made by one Jesus C- Fiores, 
a Maderista leader who was with the revolutionary forces at G6- 
mez Palacio, a city about five kilometers from Torreon in the State 
of Durango, which place had been captured and was at that time 
held by the revolutionary forces. In this speech Flores advocated 
certains reforms and, among other things, the necessity for run- 
ning the Chinese out of the country. He said that they where not 
good citizens; that they did work the Mexican women ought to do; 
that, unlike other foreigners — who spent their money in the coun- 
try — they lived on little, saved their money and sent it out of the 
country to China. Flores was killed at Torreon on the 13th during 
an attack by the revolutionary forces on the city. 

On May 12. 1911, a circular was issued by the Chinese Merch- 
ants 5 and Laborers 5 Society of Torreon, which was posted in the 
Chinese stores throughout the city and in the market-place and 
was generally distributed throughout the Chinese colony. The 
circular read as follows: 

“Brothers, attention! attention! This is serious. Many 
unjust acts have happened during the revolution. Notice has 
been received that before ten o’clock today the revolution- 
ists will unite their forces and attack the city. It is very 
probable that during the battle a mob will spring up and 
sack the stores. For this reason we advise all our people, 
when the crowds assemble, to close your doors and hide 
yourselves and under no circumstances open your places 


—5 


for business or go outside to see the fighting. And, if any 
of your stores are broken into, offer no resistance but allow 
them to take what they please, since otherwise you might 
endanger your lives. THIS IS IMPORTANT. After the 
trouble is over we will try to arrange a settlement.” 

“(Signed) Torreon Merchants 5 and Laborers 5 Society. 5 5 

On May 13 the city of Torreon was held by General Lojero of 
the Federal army, with a force which numbered 625 men. The 
revolutionists attacked the city on the morning of May 13. They 
drew a cordon around it and attacked it from all sides. In the fore- 
noon of the 13th some of the Maderista forces reached the Chinese 
vegetable gardens to the east of Torreon, and, with the walls of 
the houses in the gardens as protection, opened fire on the govern- 
ment forces. Bullet scars which may be seen on the walls of some 
of these houses show that the Maderistas occupied these gardens 
while the fight was going on. In one of these gardens thirty-eight 
Chinamen where employed. These Chinamen remained there Sat- 
urday and Sunday, during which time they were visited by 
various parties of Maderista forces and were required to prepare 
food for them. During these days they were robbed and their 
houses sacked, but none of them were killed- The fighting contin- 
ued during Saturday and Sunday, the 13th and 14th, and would 
have been resumed on Monday, the 15th, but for the fact that on 
Sunday night General Lojero, finding that his ammunition was 
about exhausted, resolved to evacuate the city and to use his 
small supply of ammunition in covering his retreat. He left Tor- 
reon at about 3.30 a. m. on May 15. In the early morning of the 
same day the Maderista forces entered the city without opposition. 
Immediately upon entering they singled out the Chinese colony 
for attack and began to loot the Chinese houses and places of bus- 
iness. Everything of value, however insignificant, which belonged 
to the Chinese was taken from them and their houses and places 
of business were completely robbed and wrecked. 


— 6 - 


Along with the looting went the killing. The soldiers and the 
local mob which joined them and which operated under their 
direction went from place to place where Chinese lived and shot 
them down or cut them into pieces with their swords, often in the 
houses where they were found and often after dragging them into 
the streets. The town was searched for Chinese and all who could 
be found were murdered in the most brutal and horrifying man- 
ner. In one instance the head of a Chinaman was severed from his 
body and thrown from the window into the street. In another in* 
stance a soldier took a little boy by the heels and battered his 
brains out against a lamp post. In many instances ropes were 
tied to the bodies ot the Chinamen and they were dragged through 
the streets by men on horseback. In another instance a Chinaman 
was pulled to pieces in the street by horses hitched to his arms 
and legs. When the massacre ended the bodies of the dead were 
robbed and mutilated. Most of the bodies were entirely stripped 
of their clothes and left naked. No language can adequately depict 
the revolting scenes which attended this carnival of human slaugh- 
ter. They beggar descritpion. The mind recoils in horror from 
the contemplation of such an atrocity. 

After the city had been searched for Chinese, the soldiers 
proceeded to the vegetable gardens and killed the Chinese garden- 
ers who, on the 13th and 14th, had given them food and shelter. 

The number of Chinese killed at Torreon at this time was 
three hundred and three. 

During the afternoon and evening the Chinese who had es- 
caped and who were hiding in the houses of foreigners and Mex- 
icans who, out of kindness, had concealed them, were collected 
under the direction of army officials and sent to the cuartels for 
protection. Even here, they were robbed of everything of value 
they had on their persons and, in many instances, were stripped 
of their clothing. 

When it became known to the foreigners resident in Torreon 
that the Chinamen were being slaughtered, representations were 
made by some of their number to the commanding officer, Emilio 
Madero, who stated that he was appalled at the massacre but 
thought that at that time— about four o’clock in the afternoon of 
the 15th — he had his men under control. 


In making this investigation, we have encountered the state- 
ment that the Chinese fired on the revolutionary forces with arms 
and ammunition furnished them by General Lojero, and that the 
massacre was precipitated by the resistance which the Chinese 
offered. It is not contended, however, that General Lojero furnish- 
ed arms and ammunition to any other foreigners in the community. 
We have investigated this point with great care and have given the 
contention the most thorough consideration. We have interrogated 
a number of leading residents of various nationalities who witnes- 
sed the massacre and we have not found any one who would state 
that the Chinese offered resistance. On the contrary, all of our 
informants state that the Chinese did not fire upon the soldiers. 
Furthermore, several persons who served under the Red Cross 
Society informed us that they know of no case where a Mexican 
had been injured or killed by the Chinese. 

After investigating this matter in the most careful manner 
possible and after giving full consideration to all the statements 
made in support thereof, we are forced to the conclusion that, in 
view of: 

First. — The peaceful and docile character of the Chinese 
people, which is universally recognized; 

Second. — The known prejudice which existed at this time in 
Torreon against the Chinese colony; 

Third. — The fact that General Lojero evacuated the city by 
reason of lack of ammunition to make a further defence; 

Fourth. — The fact that it is not claimed that General Lojero 
furnished arms and ammunition to any other foreigners; 

Fifth. — The fact that two days prior to the massacre tne 
Chinese Merchants’ and Laborers’ Society issued a warning to 
the Chinese colony, advising its members not to offer resistance 
even if the people should break into their houses, but to allow 
them to take what property they wished; 

Sixth.— The fact that persons serving under the Red Cross 
Society found no Mexicans injured or killed by the Chinese, and; 

Seventh. — The fact that a large number of residents — both 
Mexicans and foreigners— who were in Torreon at the time and 
witnessed the massacre— have no knowledge of any resistance of- 


— 8 - 


fered by the Chinese; in view of the foregoing facts and of all the 
circumstances surrounding the case, we are unable to resist the 
conclusion that the contention that the massacre was provoked by 
the resistance of the Chinese is without foundation. 

As the result of our investigation we find: 

First.— That the killing of the three hundred and three Chi- 
nese in the city of Torreon, on the 14th and 15th of May, of this 
year was an unprovoked massacre, of peaceful, lawabiding foreign- 
ers domiciled in Mexico; 

Second. — T hat it was conceived in malice and race hatred; 

Third. — That it was executed with savage ferocity by the 
soldiers of the Revolutionary army, acompanied by a local mob; and 

Fourth. — That it violated the rights to protection guaranted 
by existing treaties between Mexico and China. 


Very respectfully, 


WlLFLEY AND BASSETT- 


To His Excellency, 

Chang’ Yin Tang-, His Imperial 
Chinese Majesty’s Envoy Ex- 
traordinary and Minister Ple- 
nipotentiary to the United Sta- 
tes, Mexico, Cuba and Peru. 


Mexico, July 13, 1911. 


— 9 — 


Extract from Chinese- Mexican treaty of 1899 


Article I. 


There shall be perpetual, firm and sincere friendship between 
the Chinese Empire and the United Mexican States, as also between 
their respective subjects and citizens. They shall be at liberty to 
freely go to the respective countries of the high contracting parties 
and reside therein. They shall there have complete protection in 
their persons, families and property, and they shall enjoy all the 
rights and advantages which are granted to the subjects of the most 
favored nation. 


— 10 - 


Rules of International Law Relating to the liability 
of a country in a state of war for injuries inflicted 
upon neutral aliens domiciled within (^Territory. 

The general rule governing the liability of a government for 
injuries inflicted upon the persons or property of foreigners do- 
miciled within its territory when the country is in a state of 
war, is : 

That a government is not liable to such foreigners for injuries 
sustained as a result of the usual incidents and necessities of war; 
that the measure of protection and privilege to which foreigners 
are entitled is that which a government of a country accords to its 
own citizens. But the failure of a government to protect its own 
citizens is no excuse for its failure to protect foreigners. The 
reason for this is that one government has no power to regulate 
the relations of another towards the latter’s citizens. Neverthe- 
less, it is bound to require that its own citizens be protected. 

(See correspondence between Mexican Minister Mariscal and 
Secretary of State Blaine in the case of Leon M. Baldwin.) 

Moore' 8 International Law Digest, Vol VI . , p. 801. 


The rule defining the obligations which civilized States owe to 
one another is well stated by the celebrated Argentine publicist 
and authority on International Law. Carlos Calvo, as follows. 

“ The State is not only under obligations to sec- 

ure the reign of peace and justice among the different members 
of the society whose organ it is; it must also see, and that most 
carefully, that all who are under its authority offend neither the 
government nor the citizens of other countries. Nations are obli- 


— 11 — 


ged to respect one another, to abstain from offending or injuring 
each other many way, and, in a word, from doing anything that 
can impair each other’s interests and disturb the harmony which 
should govern their relations. A State that permits its immediate 
subjects or citizens to offend a foreign nation becomes a moral 
accomplice in their offenses and renders itself personally res- 
ponsible. ” 

Calvo’a Droit International, Section 1271. 


Liability for acts of Officials. 

The rule with respect to the liability of a nation for injuries 
inflicted upon foreigners by its officials, is: that the nation bee* 
omes liable for such injuries if it appears that the constituted 
authorities failed to exercise due diligence for the protection of 
alien life and property when they were in a position to protect 
them and the imminence of danger was known. 

“The mere fact that soldiers duly organized as such commit 
acts without orders from their superiors in command does not 
exempt their government from liability for such acts. The gov- 
ernment may be responsible for the misconduct of its soldiers 
when in the field, or when acting actually or constructively under 
its authority, if such misconduct, even if it had been forbidden by 
it, was in contravention of the rules of civilized warfare. ” 

Secretary of State Olney , Moore’s International Law Digest, Vol. VI., p. 967 

Secretary of State Frelinghuysen , ibid , Vol. VI., p. 759. 


— 12 - 


Responsibility of the Government for the acts of 
Successful Revolutionists. 

Hon. Jackson H. Ralston in his work on International Arbitral 
Law and Procedure lays down the following rule with respect to 
the responsibility of a government for the acts of successful 
revolutionist. 

Sec. 492. “That the nation is responsible for the acts and con- 
tracts of revolutionists who succeed in overturning the 
prior government, and establishing themselves in power, 
has been fully recognized by commissions; the theory 
invoked being that, the revolutionists having succeeded, 
their acts from the beginning are rightfully to be con- 
sidered as those of a titular government, and the final 
triumph of their authority should properly be given a 
retroactive effect, confirming and ratifying antecedent 
steps. (We refer particulary to citations from ’Opinion 
of Franco- Chilean Commission, ’ante, Sec. 430). This 
question arose before the Peruvian Claims commission 
(Moore, 1655), in which, the commissioners disagreeing, 
the umpire allowed to Hill, claimant, an award for per- 
sonal ill treatment at the hands of the revolutionary 
party which subsequently became the government, rej- 
ecting the demand for money belonging to the claimant, 
and of which he had been robbed.” 

Sec. 493. “So in the case of the Bolivar Railway Co. (Ven. Arb. of 
1903, 388), Plumley, umpire, said: 

‘The nation is responsible for the obligations of a suc- 
cessful revolution from its beginning, because, in theory, 
it represented ab initio a changing national will, crystal- 
lizing in the finally successful result Success dem- 

onstrates that from the begining it was registering the 
national will. ’ 

“He quoted with approval the rule laid down in the case 
of Williams vs. Bruffy (96 U. S. 176), wherein the court 
held, referring to the case where a portion of the inhab- 
itants had separated themselves from the parent state 


—13— 


and established an independent government, that ‘‘the 
validity of its acts, both against the parent state and its 
citizens or subjects, depends entirely upon its ultimate 
success. If it fail to establish itself permanently, all 
such acts perish with it. If it suceed and become rec- 
ognized, its acts from the commencement of its exist- 
ence are upheld as those of an independent nation. ” 
“This opinion the same umpire followed in the case of 
the Puerto Cabello and Valencia Railroad Co. (Veil. Arb. 
of 1903, 455). The same gentleman, when occupying a 
like position in the Prench-Venezuelan Commission, un- 
der the protocol of 1902 (Ralston’s Report, 367, 451.) said 
in the case of the French Company of Venezuelan 
Railroads: 

‘The injuries done the railroad, the buildings and the 
material, by use in war, must have been considerable, 
and since the revolution was successful, the respondent 
government is properly chargeable for its use and for 
the injuries and damages which resulted. There is no 
question as to the liability of the respondent government 
for the natural and consequential damages which result, 
ed to the railroad properties while they were in the use 
and control of the titular government. Hence there is 
unquestioned and complete responsibility on the part of 
the respondent government for all the necessary, nat- 
ural and consequential injuries which resulted to the 
railroad and its properties when used by either the 
revolutionary or the governmental forces.’ 

Sec. 494. “In the Dix case (Ven. Arb. of 1903, 7), Bainbridge, 
commissioner, speaking for the commission, said: 

‘The revolution of 1899, led by General Cipriano Castro, 
proved successful and its acts, under a well-established 
rule of International Law, are to be regarded as the acts 
of a de facto government. Its administrative and mil- 
itary officers were engaged in carrying out the policy of 
that government under the control of its executive. 
The same liability attaches for encroachments upon the 
rights of neutrals in the case of a successful revolution- 


-14- 


ary government, as in the case of any other de facto 
government.’ 

“In the Ileny case (Ven. Arb. of 1903, 14) the same com- 
missioner used almost identical language, — the case, 
however, going to the umpire, Barge, who recognized the 
principle of responsibiliy, saying (page 22) that the 
revolution proved ultimately successful in establishing 
itself as the de facto government, so that the liability of 
the Venezuelan government for these acts cannot be 
denied.” 

Ralston's International Arbitral Law and Procedure , p. 232. 


Citation of Authorities Showing amount of indem- 
nity paid by various nations for injuries inflicted 
upon neutral aliens by soldiers. 


CASE 

facts indemnity 

Webster 

Webster, American citizen, mor- 
tally wounded by soldier of the 

Mexican republican army, in a 
house which had the American 
flag raised over it. $10,000. (gold) 

Standish, 
Parsons and 
Conrow 

Standish, Parsons and Conrow, 

American citizens, killed by 

Mexican soldiers while travel- $20,000. (gold) 
mg on horseback from Monte- 25,000. ,, 

rrey to Matamoros, Mexico. 25,000. ,, 

PORTUONDO 

Portuondo, American citizen, 
shot without trial by Spanish 
soldiers during Cuban insurrec- 
tion in 1870. $60,000. (gold) 

Etzel 

Etzel, American newspaper cor- 
respondent, accidentally killed 
by Chinese soldier at Niuch- 
wang, China. Soldier punished. $12,500. (gold) 

Pears 

Pears, American citizen, pas- 
sing from his house to his office, 
killed by sentry in Honduras, 
in violation of military regula- 
tions of Honduras. $10,000. (gold) 

Campbell 

Campbell, American citizen, beat- 
en by Haytian soldiers, thrown 
into sea, permanently injured. $10,000. (gold) 

Vexiancourt 

German soldier on sentry duty 
shot and killed individual on 

French territory at Vexian- 
court. Germany apologized. $10,000. (gold) 


Rusiand Fleet Russian Baltic Fleet fired into 
and North Hull fishing fleet in North Sea 


SEA FISHER- 
MEN 

during Russo-Japanese War, 
killing two fishermen and dam- 
aging trawlers. $325,000. (gold) 


16— 


The Webster Case. 

January 7, 1866, the town of Tehuantepec was attacked by 
Mexican troops under the command of General Figueroa of the 
Mexican republican army. Claimant and other foreigners took 
refuge in a house, the property of a British subject, which had 
been used by the American Consul, who was then in the United 
States, and which bad the American flag raised over it at the time. 
The house was attacked and claimant was severely wounded by one 
of the soldiers, though unarmed and not resisting. He subse- 
quently died, and the present claim was brought by his administra- 
tor. The umpire. Sir Edward Thornton, awarded $10,000, saying: 
“There is no doubt that the soldier who wounded Webster was 
under the immediate command of a Mexican officer; that 
the act was authorized by the officer, and that the Mexican 
Government is therefore responsible for it. It is stated by 
some of the witnesses that the house in which Webster was 
at the time was invaded and occupied for the purpose of 
flanking the enemy. This may have been a necessity of war, 
but the wounding of Webster was not so. If the house was 
broken into merely for the sake of plundering, the act of 
wounding Webster was a wanton outrage, but was counte- 
nanced by an officer, so that the Government became liable 
for it.” 

Moore , International Arbitrations , Vol. ] 71 , p. 3004. 


The Standish, Parsons & Conrow Case. 

“In the case of ‘Mildred Standish vs. Mexico, ’No. 385, the 
claim arises out of the killing of the claimant’s husband, as is al- 
leged, by Mexican troops as he was peaceably traveling from Mon- 
terrey to Matamoros, in the Republic of Mexico. It seems to the 
umpire to be well proved that the said husband, by name Austin 


— 17 


M. Standish, was at the time a naturalized citizen of the United 
States. The testimony as to the killing is conflicting, but after a 
careful examination of all the evidence in this important case the 
umpire is forced into the conviction that Standish, Parsons, Con- 
row, and their servant, ‘Dutch Bill,’ were traveling alone and were 
not accompanied by any escort of imperialist troops, as has been 
suggested by the agent of Mexico, and that they were attacked 
and killed by Mexican soldiers acting under the orders of Mexican 
officers. The indications are very strong that it was Colonel San- 
dez who gave the order for the attack upon the travelers in ques- 
tion; but whether it was he who gave it or not, the umpire is con- 
vinced that the acts were committed by the order of a Mexican 
officers or Mexican officers. It is not at all impossible that this 
officer or these officers were under the impression that the party 
belonged to the imperialists forces, and therefore the acts may 
not have been criminal, except so far as they were due to the fail- 
ure previously to discover the real character of the party attacked. 

But these acts having been committed, whether with evil in- 
tention or not, by Mexican soldiers under the direction of Mexican 
officers, the umpire is of the opinion that the families of the victims 
ought to be compensated by the Mexican Government for the loss 
which they have sustained. It is shown that Standish was able to 
earn about $2,500 per annum by his profession; as he was young, 
these earnings would probably have increased rather than dimin- 
ished in after years. The umpire is of opinion that Standish’s fa* 
mily should receive such a compensation as would at an annual in’ 
terest of 6 per cent, insure them nearly $2,500, besides the value 
of whatever Standish may have had with him at the time of his 
being killed. There is some uncertainty with regard to this 
amount, but the umpire believed from the evidence and from the 
nature of the case that, including money, horse, equipments, and 
firearms, the value must have reached at least $1,500. The umpire 
therefore awards that there be paid on account of the above- 
mentioned claim the sum of forty thousand Mexican gold dollars 
($ 40 , 000 ) without interest, and the further sum of fifteen hundred 
Mexican gold dollars ($ 1 , 500 ) with interest at 6 per cent, per an- 
num from the 15th of August, 1865, to the date of the final award 
of the commission.” (Umpire Thornton). 


—18 


The umpire allowed $50,000, without interest, and $300 with 
interest, in Mexican gold, to the family of Conrow, saying that: 

“The gains of Conrow* as a lawyer were greater than those of 
Standish, and therefore, the compensation for his loss should be 
also higher.” 

Parsons’ family was also awarded $50,000, without interest* 
Mexican gold. 

Moore’s International Arbitrations , Vol. Ill , p. 3004 . 


The Portuondo Case. 


Juan F. Portuondo, a naturalized citizen of the United States, 
of Spanish origin, was, together with certain other persons, arrest- 
ed in the town of Santiago de Cuba on February 10, 1870, by order 
of the military authorities, on a charge of complicity in the prevail- 
ing insurrection. He was conducted to a place about twelve miles’ 
distant, where by Catalan volunteers, under the command of 
Lieutenant-Colonel Boet, in the service of Spain, he was shot, 
without trial. It was said that he was shot while making an 
attempt to escape. His son, Jose F. Portuondo, presented a claim 
against Spain to the commission under the agreement between 
the United States and Spain of February 12, 1871, for $100,000, 
for the killing of his father. The umpire, Baron Blanc, on May 
31, 1879, held: 

(1) . — That the killing of Portuondo by Spanish soldiers had 
“not been justified on the part of Spain by any proof of treasona- 
ble acts of the deceased;” 

(2) . — That the Spanish authorities had failed to produce evi- 
dence of “the alleged attempt of the deceased to escape from 
arrest;” 

(3) . — That, “in the sentence of the superior military tribunal 

acquitting the authors of the execution, no such attempt’’ was 
charged, “nor any other act specified or asserted to have been 
proved as could have deprived the deceased of the protec- 


—19— 


tion of the United States,” while the deceased was “shown by 
unimpeached testimony to have been constantly anxious to avoid 
any connection with the insurrection.” 

On these grounds Baron Blanc, awarded the sum of $60,000. 


Moore's International Arbitrations , Vol. Ill , p. 3007 . 


The Etzel Case. 


On June 6, 1904, Lewis L. Etzel, an American war corresp- 
ondent, was killed by Chinese soldiers at Niuchwang. The killing 
was not premeditated or intentional and the soldiers were at most 
only guilty of criminal carelessness. The Chinese authorities 
sentenced the corporal, who was in charge of the men and com- 
manded them to fire, to five years’ imprisonment, cashiered the 
commandant of the district who was responsible for the discipline 
which made the commission of the crime possible, and offered to 
the family of the deceased, in a spirit of friendliness, the sum of 
$25,000.00 Mexican. This was accepted as a settlement of the 
case. 

Moore' 8 International Digest, Vol, VI p. 765. 


The Pears’ Case 


On the evening of January 31, 1899, Frank Pears, a citizen of 
the United States, was killed by a sentinel in San Pedro, Hondu- 
ras, while passing between his office and his house. The sentry 
was tried by Court of Inquiry and found not guilty and released. 
Afterwards he was discharged from the army. The evidence 
shows that Pears when killed was on a spot where he had a right 


- 20 - 


i 


) 


to be; that he was not accompanied nor engaged in the act of 
flight; that he was standing in the full light of a street lamp and 
that he was shot only a few seconds after he was challenged. Mr. 
Pears when shot was advancing towards the sentry. The sentry 
did not follow the military regulations of Honduras in his action 
in this case. 

The United States declared that under the circumstances the 
killing of Pears could be regarded as nothing “but the cruel mur- 
er of a defenceless man innocently passing from his office to his 
house.” The United States, therefore, demanded the arrest and 
punishment of the sentry and the payment of an indemnity of 
$10,000.00 Gold to the relatives of Pears, which amount was 
subsequently paid by Honduras. 

Moore’ 8 International Law Digest. Vol. VI . , p. 762 . 


The Campbell Case. 


In April, 1899, Bernard Campbell, a citizen of the United 
States, made a contract in New York for his services as engineer 
on a steamer in the West Indies . He suppose that his service 
was to be on board a merchant vessel. With this understanding 
he and certain other persons under similar contract took passage 
for the West Indies on the steamer “Clyde.” When the “Clyde” 
reached Cape Haytian April 17, 1899, Admiral Cooper and Captain 
Compton of the Haytian Navy boarded the vessel and informed 
Campbell that he was expected to serve on a Haytian man-of-war 
that lay nearby. He refused; was threatened with death, but still 
refused. The next day while waiting on the wharf for passage to 
Montecristi, in Santo Domingo, he was beaten by the Haytian 
soldiers and thrown into the sea. He finally got back to New York, 
permantly injured in health. The presumption was strong that 
the cause of the assault upon him was his refusal to serve in the 
Haytian Navy. 


— 21 — 


The United States maintained that he was entitled to a “sub- 
stantial indemnity.” The claim was settled in April 1891 by the 
Government of Hayti agreeing to pay to the United States the 
sum of $10,000.00 Gold. 

Moore's International Digest, Vol. VI p . 764. 


The Vexaineourt Case. 

“As regards the question what kind of acts of administrative 
officials and military and naval forces are of an internationally 
injurious character, the rule may safely be laid down that such 
acts of these subjects are internationally injurious as would 
constitute international delinquencies when committed by the 
State itself or with is authorization. A very instructive case may 
be quoted as an illustrative example. 

“On September 26, 1887, a German soldier on sentry duty 
at the frontier near Vexaineourt shot from the German side and 
killed an individual who was on French territory. As this act of 
the sentry violated French territorial supremacy, Germany dis- 
owned it and apologized for it and paid a sum of 50,000 francs to 
the widow of the deceased as damages. ” 

Oppenheim , International Law, Vol. i.,p. 209. 


The Russian Baltic Fleet Case 

On October 24 of 1904, during the Russo Japanese War the 
Russian Baltic Fleet, which was on its way to the Far East, fired 
into the Hull fishing fleet off the Dogger Bank, in the North Sea, 
whereby two fishermen were killed and considerable damage 
was done to several trawlers. Great Britain demanded from 
Russia not only an apology and ample damages, but also severe 


- 22 - 


punishment of the officer- responsible for the outrage. As Russia 
maintained that the firing of the fleet was caused by the approach 
of some Japanese torpedo boats, and that she could therefore 
not punish the officer in command, the parties agreed upon the 
establishment of an International Commission of Inquiry which, 
however, was charged not only to ascertain the facts of the in- 
cident but also to pronounce an opinion concerning the respon- 
sibility for the incident and the degree of blame attaching to the 
responsible persons. 

The commission consisted of five naval officers of high rank, 
namely: one British, one Russian, one American, one French and 
one Austrian, who sat at Paris in February 1905. The report of 
the Commission states that no torpedo boats had been present; 
that the opening of fire on the part of the Baltic Fleet was not 
justifiable; that Admiral Rojdestvensky, the commander of the 
Baltic Fleet, was responsible for the incident, but that these facts 
were ‘ ‘not of a nature to cast any discredit upon the military 
qualities or the humanity of Admiral Rojdestvensky or of the 
personnel of his squadron.” 

In consequence of the last part of this report, Great Britain 
could not insist upon any punishment to be meted out to the res- 
ponsible Russian Admiral, but Russia paid a sum £65,000 to 
indemnify the victims of the incident and the families of the two 
dead fishermen. 


Oppenheim , International Law , Vol. II , p. 7. 


MEMORANDA 


SOBRE LA LEY Y LOS H ECHOS 

EN ELASUNTO DE LA RECLAMACION PE CHINA CONTRA MEXICO 

POR LAS PERDiPAS PE VIDAS Y BIENES 

SUFRIDAS FOR SUBPITQS CHINOS 

EN TORREON, 

LOS DIAS 13, 14 Y IS PE! MAYO DE 1911. 

TRADUCCION 


REDACTADO POR 

WILFLEY & BASSETT. 


(INGLES Y ESPAfvlOD 




RELACION DE HECHOS. 


(Copia del informe presentado por el bufete Wilffey 
& Bassett a Su Excelencia el Ministro Chang 
Yin Tang, en el dia 13 de Julio de 1911). 


Muy Sefior Ministro: 

Obsequiando sus deseos tenemosel gusto desometer & usted, 
con la presente, un informe sobre los hechos relacionados con los 
dafios inferidos sobre subditos Chinos, por subditos Mexicanos 
en la Ciudad de Torre6n, Estado de Coahuila, los dfas 14 y 15 de 
Mayo del presente alio. 

La relacibn siguiente estd basada en I 03 resultados de una in* 
vestigacion practicada por el sefior Bassett de este despacho, per- 
sonalmente, habiendo visitado este sefior & la Ciudad de Torre6n 
unos cuantos dlas despu^s de la matanza, y sobre los resultados 
de investigaciones practicadas por otras personas que estuvieron 
en Torrebn cuando tuvo verificativo la matanza. 

La Ciudad de Torre6n es un prbspero centro comercial y ferro- 
carrilero, poblado por unos 35,000 habitantes, estando ubicada la 
Ciudad en la parte suroeste del Estado de Coahuila. 

Con anterioridad al 15 de Mayo de 1911, hubo en dicho lugar 
una Colonia China que contaba entre 600 y 700 almas* Por motivo 
de su actividad y provecho, los Chinos en Torre6n hablan alcanzado 
alto grado de prosperidad. La Colonia era pacifica y se atenia & la 
Ley, tal corao acostumbran hacer los Chinos en todas partes del 
mundo. 


— 4 — 


Muchos de los Mexicanos en Torredn y sus alrededores, re- 
sentian la existencia de esta grande y prdspera Colonia China en 
aqueila localidad y so inicio una manifestacidn en su contra, por 
algunos agitadores que recurrieron d las antipatias de la gente ig- 
norante del pueblo. 

El 16 de Septiembre de 1910, un Mexicano pronuncid un dis- 
curso en presencia de un gran concurso de personas, en cuyo dis- 
curso fueron criticados los Chinos y despuds de dicho discurso se 
hizo una manifestacidn en contra de los Chinos radicados en To- 
rredn; se apedrearon las casas y se rompieron las ventanas, pero 
en esta fecha no se cometieron abusos en las personas de los Chi- 
nos. 

El 5 de Mayo de 1911, un tal Jesus C. Flores, Jefe Maderista 
que estuvo con las f uerzas revolucionarias en Gdmez Palacio, ciudad 
que dista de Torre6n unos cinco kildmetros, y pertenece al Estado 
de Durango, cuya ciudad en aqueila fecha habla sido capturada por 
los revolucionarios y se hallaba en su poder, pronuncid un discurso 
en el que advocaba ciertas reformas, entre ellas la necesidad de 
expulsar & los Chinos del Pals. Flores dijo que los Chinos no eran 
buenos ciudadanos; que haclan los trabajos que deblan liacer las 
Mexicanas; que ai contrario de los dem&s extranjeros— que gasta- 
ban su dinero en el pals — vivlan con muy poco, ahorraban su dine- 
ro y lo mandaban fuera del pals, & China. Flores fud muerto el 13 
de Mayo en el ataque que libraron los revolucionarios sobre la 
Ciudad de Torredn. 

Con fecha 12 de Mayo la Sociedad de Comerciantes y Obreros 
Chinos de Torredn, publicd un aviso que se fijd en las tiendas de 
los Chinos, en todas partes dela Ciudad, en el mercado, y que en 
general fud distribuido en todas partes de la Colonia China. El aviso 
es del tenor siguiente: 

“Hermanos: Atencidn!, Atencidn; esto es serio. Se ban 
cometido muchos actos de injusticia durante la revolucidn • 
Se han recibido noticias de que antes de las 10 de la maflana 
de hoy, los revolucionarios uniran sus fuerzas y atacar&n a 
la Ciudad. Es sumamente probable que durante la batalla 
se levante la plebe y saquee las tiendas. En consecuencia, 
aconsejamos a todos nuestros compatriotas, que, cuandose 
reuna la plebe, cierren sus puertas y se oculten, no abrien- 
do las puertas bajo ningun pretexto ni salir & la calle para 


— 5 — 


presenciar la lucha. Y si penetran a algunas de vuestras 
tiendas no opongais resistencia, permitiendo a los asaltantes 
que se apoderen de lo que deseen, puesto que de otro modo 
estar&n expuestos & perder vuestras vidas. ES TO ES IM- 
PORTANTE. DespuSs de terminado el ataque procurare- 
mos tener un arreglo. 

(Firmado) Sociedad de Comerciantes y Obreros de To* 
rre6n.” 

El IB de Mayo, la Ciudad de Torredn estaba en posesidn del 
General Lojero del Ej6rcito Federal, que mandaba una fuerza de 
625 hombres. Los revolucionarios atacaron & la Ciudad en la ma- 
liana del dla 13 de Mayo* Colocaron un cord6n ai rededor de la 
Ciudad y atacaron por todos lados. En la tarde del dla 13 algunos 
de los Maderistas llegaron dlos jardines de legumbres de los Chi- 
nos hacia el Oriente de la Ciudad, y con protecci6n de los muros 
de las casas en los jardines, hicieron fuego sobre las fuerzas del 
Gobierno. Las liuellas de las balas quepueden verse en los muros 
de algunas de las citadas casas, son prueba de que algunos de los 
Maderistas ocuparonlos jardines durante el desarrollo de la lucha. 
En uno de estos jardines estuvieron empleados treinta y ocho Chi- 
nos. Estos Chinos permanecieronen el lugar de su empleo durante 
el s&bado y el domingo, y en esos dlas fueron visitados por varios 
de las fuerzas Maderistas vi6ndose obligados & prepararles la co- 
mida. Durante estos dlas fueron robados sus bienes y saqueadas 
sus casas pero ninguno de ellos fud inuerto* El combate continu6 
durante los dlas 13, y 14 sdbado y domingo, y hubieraseguidoenla 
maiiana del lunes dla 15, & no ser que, el domingo en la noche supo 
el General Lojero que su parque estaba casi agotado, en cuyacon- 
secuencia resolvid evacuar la Ciudad utilizando la pequetla cantidad 
de parque que le quedaba, para cubrir su retirada. El General 
parti6 de la Ciudad hacia las 3.30 a. m. del dla 15 de Mayo. En las 
primeras horas de la mafiana del mismo dla, la fuerza maderista 
penetro a la Ciudad sin que se le opusiera resistencia* Tan pronto 
como entraron, hicieron & la Colonia China objeto de un ataque y 
empesaron a saquear los hogares y establecimientos de los Chinos. 
Todo artlculo de valor por mas insignificante que fuera, de la pro- 
piedad de los Chinos, fu6 tornado de ellos, quedando sus hogares y 
establecimientos completamente destruldos y robados. 


6 — 


A1 paso que saqueaban mataban . Los soldados y la plebe de 
la localidad que se uni6 con los soldados y que obraba bajo sus 
instrucciones, fueron de sitio en sitio en donde vivlan los Chinos 
matdndolos d balazos 6 a sablazos, muchas veces en las casas en 
que fueron hallados y muchas veces, despues de arrastrarlos por 
las calles. Se practicb una pesquiza en toda la ciudad para encon- 
trar d los Chinos, y cuantos fueron hallados, fueron muertos de la 
manera mds brutal y horrenda. En un caso la cabeza de un Chino 
fub separada de su cuerpo y aventada por la ventana d la calle- En 
otro caso un soldado agar r 6 d un muchachito por los pies y le 
aplastb la cabeza contra un farol. En muchos casos fueron ama- 
rradas cuerdas d los cuerpos de los Chinos y fueron arrastrados 
por las calles por hombres d caballo. Hubo otro caso en que un 
Chino fub desmembrado por caballos dque se hablan amarrado los 
brazos y piernas del Cliino. Cuando termino la matanza los cadd 
▼eres de los Chinos fueron mutilados y robados. De casi todos los 
caddveres quitaron toda la ropa dejdndolos enteramente desnudos. 
No hay palabras adecuadas para describir las escenas repugnan- 
tes que acompaftaron d este carnaval de muerte humana; toda des- 
cripcibn es impotente para pintarlas. El almaresalta horrorizado 
al contemplar semejante atrocidad. 

Despubs de haber registrado la ciudad enbusca de Chinos, los 
soldados acudieron a los jardines de legumbres y mataron d los 
jardineros, que en los dias 13 y 14 les hablan proporcionado casa y 
comida. 

El numero de Chinos muertos en Torrebn en esta ocasibn, fub 
de Trescientos Tres. 

Durante la tarde y noche los Chinos que hablan logrado fu- 
garse, y que estaban escondidos en las casas de extranjerosy Me- 
xicanos, que por motivos de benevolencia los hablan ocultado, fue- 
ron reunidos bajo la direccibn de oficiales del ejbrcito y enviados & 
los cuarteles para ser protegidos. Aun aqul, en los cuarteles, se 
les robb todo cuanto tenlan de valor en sus personas y, en muchos 
casos, se les quitb toda la ropa. 

Cuando supieron los extranjeros residentes en Torrebn, que 
se estaba dando muerte d los Chinos, algunos de ellos hicieron re- 
presentaciones al oficial superior, Sr. Emilio Madero, quien dijo 
que estaba consternado con la matanza, pero que crela que en 
aquellos momentos— aproximadamente las cuatro de la tarde del 
dla 15 — tenia dominada d su gente. 


7 — 


En el curso de esta investigation, hemos sabido que se dice 
que los Chinos hicieron fuego sobre las fuerzas revolucionarias con 
armas y municiones que les fueron facilitadas por el General Lo* 
jero, y que la matanza fu6 precipitada por la resistencia que opu- 
sieron los Chinos. No se alega, sin embargo, que el General Lojero 
haya facilitado armas y municiones & otros extranjeros de esa lo- 
calidad. Hemos hecho averiguaciones sumamente cuidadosas so- 
bre este punto, liabiendo dado & esta altercacidn el m&s prof undo 
estudio. Hemos interrogado & varios residentes de Torrebn, de 
distintas nacionalidades y de primera categoria, pero no hemos 
encontrado siquiera uno que diga que los Chinos opusieron resis- 
tencia. Por el contrario, todos nuestros entrevistados informan 
que los Chinos no hicieron fuego sobre los sold ados. Es m&s, va- 
rias personas que estuvieron sirviendo con la Cruz Roja, nos infor- 
maron que no conocieron ningun caso en que un Mexicano fuera 
herido 6 muerto por los Chinos. 

Habiendo investigado este asunto de la manera m&s cuidadosa 
posible, y habiendo apreciado debidamente todas las declaraciones 
hechas en su apoyo, nos vemos obligados & considerar que, en 
vista de: 

Primero:— El car&cter pacifico 6 inofensivo de los Chinos, que 
es universalmente reconocido; 

Segundo: — La conocida antipatia que en aquel tiempo existia 
en Tor r eon hacia la Colon ia China; 

Tercero:— El hecho de haber evacuado la Ciudad el General 
Lojero, por no contar con municiones para continuar su defensa; 

Cuarto: — El hecho de no alegar se que el General Lojero haya 
facilitado armas y municiones a otros extranjeros; 

Quinto: — El hecho de que con dos dias de anticipation & la 
matanza, la Sociedad de Comerciantes y Obreros haya expedido 
un aviso a la Colonia China, previniendo a los Chinos que no opu- 
sieran resistencia aun en el caso de que sus tiendas fueran viola- 
das, sino que, por el contrario, permitieran a sus asaltantes tomar 
lo que desearan de sus propiedades. 

Sexto: — El hecho de que las personas que estuvieron sirvien- 
do con la Cruz Roja no tuvieron conocimiento de ningun caso de 
Mexicano herido 6 muerto por Chinos, y; 

Septimo: — El hecho de que un gran numero de vecinos, tan to 
Mexicanos como extranjeros, que estuvieron en Torre6n en la fe- 
cha de los acontecimientos y preseneiaron la matanza, no tienen 


— 8 — 


conocimiento de ninguna resistencia opuesta por los Chinos; en 
vista de los anteriores hechos y de todas las eircunstancias que 
rodean el caso, no podemos menos que aceptar la conclusi6n de 
que el decir que la matanza fue provocada por la resistencia opues- 
ta por los Chinos, no tiene fundamento de verdad. 

Como resultado de nuestra investigacion encontramos: 

Primero: — Que la matanza de los trescientos tres Chinos en 
la Ciudad de Torredn, en los dias 14 y 15 de Mayo del presente auo 
fud una matanza. sin provocacidn, de extranjeros paclficos residen- 
tes en Mdxico que se atenlan d la ley; 

Segundo: — Q ue fue concebida con malicia y odio de razas; 

Tercero: — Que fud ejecutada con iiereza salvaje por los solda- 
dos del ejercito revolucionarlo, en compafiia de una plebe local; y, 

Cuarto: — Que fud violacibn de todos los derechos de pro tec- 
cion garantizados por los tratados vigentes entre Mexico y China. 

De Ud. afmo. y atto. S. S. 

Wilfley & Bassett. 


A Su Excelencia, 

Chang Yin Tang, Enviado Ex- 
traordinario y Ministro Pleni- 
potenciario d los Estados Uni- 
dos, Mexico, Cuba y Peru de su 
Majestad del Imperio Chino. 


Mexico. Julio 13 de 1911. 


— 9 — 


Extracto del Tratado Chino- Mexican© de 1899. 


Articulo I. 


Habr& amistad perpetua, firme y sincera entre el Imperio Chi- 
no y los Estados Unidos Mexicanos, e igualmente entre sus respec- 
tivos subditos y ciudadanos. Estar6n en libertad para ir y venir 
entre los respectivos paises de las respectables partes contratantes 
y para residir en dichos paises. Se les proporcionarA completa pro- 
teccidn en cuanto a sus personas, familias y propledades y disfruta- 
ran de todas las garantias y ventajas que se concedan k los subdi- 
tos de las naciones mks favorecidas. 


10 - 


R&gias de Derecho Internacional en relacidn con 
la responsabilidad de una nacion en estado de 
guerra de los danos inferidos sobre extranje- 
ros neutrales domiciliados dentro de su terri- 
tory. 

La regia general para fijar la responsabilidad de un gobierno 
de los dafios inferidos sobre personas 6 propiedades de extranje- 
ros domiciliados dentro de su territorio cuando la nacibn se halla 
en estado de guerra, es: 

Que un gobierno no es responsable ante dicbos extranjeros 
de los dafios sufridos como resultado de los incidentes y necesi- 
dades ordinarias de la guerra; que el grado de protecci6n y privi- 
legio £ que tienen derecho los extranjeros es el mismo que un 
gobierno proporciona £ sus propios ciudadanos. Pero la falta de 
un gobierno de proteger £ sus propios ciudadanos no disculpa su 
falta de proteger £ extranjeros. La razdn de esto es que un go- 
bierno no tiene atribuciones para precisar las relaciones de otro 
gobierno hacia los ciudadanos de este. Sin embargo estd obliga- 
do £ exijir que sus propios ciudadanos sean protegidos. 

(Vbase la correspondencia entre el Ministro Mexicano, Sefior 
Mariscal y el Sefior Secretario de Estado, Blaine, en el asunto de 
Le6n M. Baldwin.) 

Moore. Clasificacion de Derecho International, Vol. FI., P. 801. 


La regia que precisa las obligaciones que las naciones civiliza. 
das deben observar entre si est£ muy bibn consignada por el c6- 
lebre publicista y autoridad sobre Derecho Internacional, Argen- 
tine, en las siguientes f rases: 

“ El estado no tan solo estd obligado £ garantizar 

la permanencia de la paz y la justicia entre los drferentes elemen- 
tos que componen la sociedad y cuyo 6rgano es, sino que tambi^n 
debe ver, con el mayor cuidado, que todos aquellos que viven bajo 
su jurisdiccibn ofendan ni £ los gobiernos ni a los ciudadanos de 


11 — 


otros paises. Las Naciones estan obligadas £ respetarse mutua- 
mente, £ abstenerse de cometer injurias u ofenderse la una £ la 
otra, y, en una palabra, £ no ejecutar acto alguno que pueda per- 
judicar los intereses de una y otra 6 quebrantar la harmonia que 
debe predominar en sus relaciones. Una nacibn que permite que 
sus inmediatos subditos 6 ciudadanos ofendan £ una naci6n extran- 
jera, se hace cbmplice moral de las ofensas de sus ciudadanos y 
se hace personalmente responsable.” 


Calvo. Derecho International , Section 1277. 


Responsabilidad por Actos de Funcionarios. 

La regia con respecto de la responsabilidad de una nacibn por 
dafios inferidos sobre extranjeros por sus funcionarios, es: Que 
la nacibn viene £ ser responsable de dichos dafios cuando aparece 
que la autoridad constituida dejb de obrar con la debida diligencia 
para proteger £ las vidas y propiedades de extranjeros, hallando* 
se en condiciones para protegerlas y siendo conocida la inminen* 
cia del peligro. 

“El mero hecho de que soldados debidamente organizados 
cometen actos sin orden superior de su comandante no exime al 
gobierno de la responsabilidad de dichos actos. El gobierno pue- 
de ser responsable de la mala conducta de sus soldados en cam- 
pafia, b cuando esto3 actuan precisa b impllcitamente bajo su 
autoridad, si tal mala conducta aun en el caso de haberse prohibi- 
do por el gobierno, fuera contraria a las leyes de la guerra 
civilizada.” 

Secretario de Estado Olney. Moore. Clasiflcacion de Derecho International , 

Vol. VI p. 967; 

Secretario de Estado Frelinghuysen , idem , Vol. VI., p. 759 . 


— 12 — 


Responsabilidad del Gobierno por actos de revo- 
lucionarios triunfantes. 

El Hon. Jackson H. Ralston establece la siguiente regia con 
respecto de la responsabilidad de un gobierno en relacidn con los 
actos de revolucionarios triunfantes : 

Sec. 492. “Que la nacidn es responsable de los actos y contratos 
de revolucionarios que logran destituir al gobierno ante- 
rior y se establecen en el poder, es un hecho que ha sido 
plenamente reconocido por comisiones; la teoria estable- 
cida siendo la que habiendo tenido dxito los revoluciona- 
rios, sus actos desde el principio propiamente han de 
estimarse como actos de un gobierno titular, y el dxito 
definitivo de su autoridad propiamente debe tener efecto 
retroactivo, confirmando y ratificando los actos anterio- 
res, (Nos referimos particularmente a los extractos to- 
rnados de la Opinidn de la Comisidn Pranco-Chilena 
’ante, Sec. 430.) Estacuestidn se suscitdante la Comisidn 
Peruviana de reclamaciones (Moore, 1655) en cuya re- 
clamacidn estando la comisidn de desacuerdo, el drbitro 
concedid al reclamante, Hill, compensacidn por dafios 
personales inferidos por el partido revolucionario que 
posteriormente vino a ser el gobierno, rechazando la 
demanda por dinero de la propiedad del reclamante que 
le habia sido robado. ” 

Sec. 493. “Lo mismo sucedid en el caso de la Bolivar Railway 
Company. (Ven. Arb. de 1903, 388), en cuyocasoel drbi- 
tro, sefior Plumley, dijo: 

‘ ‘La nacidn es responsable de las obligaciones de una re- 
volucidn triunfan te desde su principio, puesto que, en 
teoria, la revolucidn representaba al) initio, un cambio 
de la voluntad nacional que se did car&cter definitivo por 

la revuelta que por fin triunfd El dxito demuestra 

que desde el principio la revolucidn expresaba la volun- 
tad de la nacidn. ” 

“El mismo citd con aprobacidn la regia establecida en el 
asunto de Williams vs. Bruffy (96 U. S. 176) en el que el 
tribunal declard, refiridndose al caso en que una parte 
de los habitantes se hablan separado de la madre patria, 


—13— 


estableciendo un gobierno independiente, que, ‘la vali- 
dez de sus actos tanto en contra de la madre patria como 
en contra de sus ciudadanos 6 subditos, depende ente- 
ramente de su bxito definitivo. Dejdndose de establecer 
de un modo permanente todos los citados actos de seme- 
jante gobierno perecen con 61. Si tal gobierno llega 6 
tener bxito y a ser reconocido, sus actos desde el mo- 
mento en que empezd 6 existir son apoyados como actos 
de un gobierno independiente.” 

“Esta opinibn fue seguida por el mismo drbitro en la 
causa del Ferrocarrii Puerto Cabello y Valencia. (Ven. 
Arb. de 1903, 455). El mismo sefior, estando desempe- 
fiando un cargo semejante en la Comisibn Franco- Vene- 
zolana, bajo el protocolo de 1902 (Ralston’s Report, 367, 
451), dijo en el asunto de la Compafila Francesa de 
Ferrocarriles Venezolanos: 

‘Los dafios sufridos por el ferrocarrii, los edificios y los 
materiales, han de haber sido considerables, y puesto 
que la revolucibn fue triunfan te, el gobierno demandado 
es propiamente responsable por su uso y por los dafios 
y perjuicios causados. No puede haber cuestibn en 
cuanto a la responsabilidad del gobierno demandado por 
los dafios natu rales y consiguientes sufridos por el ferro- 
carrii y sus propiedades, mientras estuvieron en uso y 
poder del gobierno titular. En su consecuencia, existe 
responsabilidad positiva y completa por parte del go- 
bierno demandado por todos los dafios necesarios, natu- 
rales y consiguientes sufridos por el ferrocarrii y sus 
propiedades, mientras se estuvieron usando por las fuer- 
zas revolucionarias 6 las del gobierno.” 

Sec. 494. “En la causa de Dix (Ven. Arb. de 1903, 7), el sefior 
Baindridge, comisionado, hablando por la Comisibn, dijo: 
‘La revolucibn del afio 1899, encabezada por Cipriano 
Castro, triunfb, y con arreglo & una disposicibn bien es- 
tablecida de Derecho Internacional, sus actos deben con- 
siderarse como actos de un gobierno de facto. Sus ofi- 
ciales ad minis trativos y militares se dedicaban & poner 
en efecto la politica de aquel gobierno bajo el mando de 
su ejecutivo. La misma responsabilidad recae por infrac- 
ciones de las garantias de neutrales en el caso de una 


—14— 


revoluci6n triunfante que en el caso de cualquier otro 
gobierno de facto. ” 

“En la causa Henry (Ven. Arb. de 1903, 14), el mismo 
comisionado empled casi id^nticas palabras, habidndose 
sin embargo, sometido el asunto & un drbitro que fu6 el 
sefior Barge, quien reconoci6 el principio de responsa- 
bilidad, diciendo en la p&gina 22, que ‘la revolucion pudo 
por fin establecerse como un gobierno de facto, de ma- 
nera que no puede negarse la responsabilidad del go- 
bierno Venezolano de estos actos.”’ 

Derecho Internacional de Arbitrage y Procedimientos. Ralston , p. 232. 


Citaciones de Autoridades haciendo constar las 
cuantias de las Indemnidades pagadas por 
varias Naciones, por danos inferidos sobre 
Extranjeros Neutrales por soldados. 


CAUSA 

HECHOS INDEMNIDAD 

Webster 

Webster, ciudadano Americano 
mortalmente herido por soldado 
del ej6rcito Republicano Mexi- 
cano en casa que tenia izada la 
bandera Americana. $ 10,000 (oro) 

Standish, 
Parsons y 
Conrow 

Standish, Parsons y Conrow, 
ciudadanos Americanos, muer- $ 20,000 (oro) 
tos por soldados Mexicanos $ 25,000 (oro) 
mientras viajaban d caballo de $ 25,000 (oro) 
Monterrey d Matamoros, Mexi- 
co. 

PORTUONDO 

Portuondo, ciudadano America- 
no, fusilado sin proeeso por sol- 
dados Espaftoles durante la re- 
volution en Cuba, en 1870. $ 60,000 (oro) 

Etzel 

Etzel, Americano, corresponsal 
de peri6dico, accidentalmente 
muerto por soldado Chino en 

Niuchwang, China. Soldado cas- 

tigado. $ 12,500 (oro) 

Pears 

Pears, ciudadano Americano, pa- 
sando de su casa d su oficina, 
muerto por centinela en Hondu- 
ras con violacibn del reglamen- 
to militar de Honduras. $ 10,000 (oro) 

Campbell 

Campbell, ciudadano Americano, 
golpeado por soldados Haytia- 
nos, arrojado al mar permanen- 
temente lesionado. $ 10,000 (oro) 

Vexiancourt 

Un soldado Alemdn de centine- 
la dispar6 y mat6 a un individuo 
en territorio Francds, en Ve- 
xiancourt. Alemania di6 satis- 
facciOn. $ 10,000 (oro) 

Escuadra 
Rusa del 

La Escuadra Rusa del Mar Bdl- 
tico hizo fuego sobre la flota de 


Baltico y Pes- Pescadores de Hull, matando d 
cadores del dos Pescadores y haciendo dafro 
Mar Norte d las rastras. $ 825,000 (oro) 


- 16 - 


La Causa Webster. 

En 7 de Enero de 1866, el pueblo de Tehuantepec fu6 atacado 
por las tropas Mexicanas bajo el mando del General Figueroa del 
ejdrcito Republicano Mexicano. El reclamante y otros extranjeros 
se refugiaron en una casa de la propiedad de un subdito Brit&nico, 
cuya casa habia sido usada por el C6nsul Americano que entonces 
se hallaba en los Estados Unidos, y que en el momento de los acon- 
tecimientos tenia izada la bandera Americana. La casa fu6 atacada 
y el reclamante gravemente herido por uno de los soldados & pesar 
de que no llevaba armas y no ofrecla resistencia. Posteriormente el 
reclamante murid y la presente reclamacidn se presentd por sus 
administradores. El drbitro, Sir Edward Thornton, dispuso que 
se pagara una retribucidn por valor de $10,000, diciendo: 

“No existe duda alguna de que el sold ado Mexicano que hiri6 & 
Webster obraba bajo el mando inmediato de un oficial Me- 
xicano, que el acto fud autorizado por el oficial, y que elGo- 
bierno Mexicano es por lo tanto responsable de dicho acto. 
Dicen algunos de los testigos que la casa en que estaba 
Webster entonces, fud invadida y ocupada con el propdsito 
de tomar al enemigo por el fianco. Esto habra sido necesi- 
dad de guerra pero el herir & Webster no lo era. Si la casa 
fu6 entrada d fuerza solo con el prop6sito de saquearla, el 
acto de herir & Webster fue un ultraje caprichoso, pero fu6 
consentido por el oficial de manera que el Gobierno es res- 
ponsable. 

Moore. Arbitrajes Internationales , Vol. II I, pdg. 3004 . 


La Causa da Standish, Parsons y Conrow. 

“En la causa de “Mildred Standish vs. Mexico,” No. 385, la 
reclamacidn es consecuencia de la muerte del marido de la recla- 
mante, segun se alega, d, manos de tropas Mexicanas puesto q ue 
viajaba pacificamente de Monterrey a Matamoros, en la Republica 
Mexicana. A juicio del drbitro parece estar claramente probado 


— 17 — 


que el citado marido, cuyo nombre era Agustm M. Standish, era 
en aquel tiempo eiudadano naturalizado de los Estados Unidos- El 
testimonio referente dla muerte es contradictorio, pero despubs de 
haber examinado cuidadosamente todo el testimonio en este impor- 
tante asunto, el arbitro se ve obligado d creer que Standish, Par- 
sons, Conrow y el eriado de estos, que se llamaba “Dutch Bill” 
viajaban solos y que no iban acorn pafiados de tropas imperialistas 
como ha sugestionado el agente de Mexico, y que fueron atacados 
y muertos por soldados Mexicanos obrando bajo ordenes de oficia- 
les Mexicanos. Las probabilidades son todas indicatorias de que fub 
el Coronel Sandez quien libro el or den de ataque sobre los referidos 
viajeros, pero que el haya sido 6 no haya sido, el drbitro estd con- 
vencido de que la orden fub librada por oficiales u oficial Mexicano. 
No es de modo algun improbable que dichos oficiales u oficial ha- 
yan creido que el grupo pertenecia d las fuerzas imperialistas, y 
por lo tanto los actos no tuvieron tal vez cardcter criminal, excepto 
en cuanto se refiere a la falta de averiguar anteriormente el verda- 
dero cardcter del grupo atacado.” 

“Pero habibndose cometido estos actos por soldados Mexica- 
nos con mala intencibn 6 sin ella, y bajo brdenes de oficiales Mexi- 
canos, el drbitro es de opinibn de que las familias de las victimas 
deben de ser compensadas por el Gobierno Mexicano por las pbrdi- 
das que han sufrido. Esta probado que Standish pudo ganar de su 
profesibn unos $2,500 anuales; puesto que era joven estas retribu- 
ciones probablemente hubieran aumentado en vez de disminuir en 
los afios subsiguientes. El drbitro es de opinion que la familia 
Standish debe percibir tal suma por vlas de compensacion, que 
i river tido d razbn del 6% anual les proporcionaria aproximadamente 
una renta de $2,500 cada alio, mas el valor de todo cuanto llevaba 
Standish con sigo en la fecha en que fub muerto. Existe alguna 
duda con I'especto de esta cantidad, pero el drbitro, fundandose en 
las pruebas y en la naturaleza del asunto, opina que entre dinero, 
caballo, equipo y armas de fuego, el valor de todo habra alcanzado 
cuando menos $1,500. El 6-rbitro, en consecuencia, dispone que se 
pague a cuenta de la referida reclamacibn, la cantidad de Cuarenta 
Mil Pesos, Oro Mexicano ($ 40,000), sin rbditos y la suma adicio- 
nal de Mil Quinientos Pesos, Oro Mexicano, ($1,500), con rbditos 
a razbn del 6% anual d contar del dia 15 de Agosto de 1865 hasta 
la fecha del pago de la compensacion definitiva precisada por la 
comisibn. ,, (Thornton Arbitro.) 


- 18 - 


El drbitro adjudicd la suma de $50,000 sin reditos, y $300 con 
rdditos, todo oro Mexicano, k la f am ilia de Conrow, diciendo que: 

“Las ganancias de Conrow como abogado eran may ores que 
las de Standish, y por lo tanto la compensaci6n por su pdrdida 
tambten debe ser mayor.” 

A la familia Parsons tambidn se adjudicd la suma de $50,000, 
sin rdditos. y $500 con rdditos, todo Oro Mexicano. 

Moore. Arbitrages Internationales, Vol. Ill, pdg. 3004 . 


La Causa Portuondo. 

Juan F. Portuondo, ciudadano naturalizado de los Estados 
Unidos y de origen Espaftol, fud detenido en compafila de otras 
personas, en 10 de Febrero de 1870 , en Santiago de Cuba, por or- 
den de la autoridad militar, acusado de complicidad en la revolu- 
cion que en aquel tiempo prevalecia. Fud llevado k un sitio k unas 
doce millas de distancia, en donde fud fusilado por voluntarios 
Catalanes al servicio de Espafla, al mando del Teniente Coronel 
Boet, y sin haber sido procesado. Se dijo que fue muerto al inten- 
tar la fuga. Su hijo, Josd F. Portuondo, presentd una reclamacidn 
contra Espafla, ante la comision, existiendo, con arreglo k un con- 
venio entre Estados Unidos y Espafla, de fecha 12 de Febrero de 
1871 , por lacantidad de $100,000, en calidad de compensacidn por 
la muerte de su padre. El drbitro, el Bar6n Blanc, con fecha 31 
de Mayo de 1879 , resolvid: 

(1) Que la muerte de Portuondo k manos de soldados Espaflo- 
les “no habia sido justificado por Espafla por prueba dealgun acto 
de traicidn por parte del difunto;’’ 

( 2 ) Que las autoridades Espanolas habian dejado de presentar 
pruebas con respecto del “supuesto intentado del difunto de fu- 
garse;’ 5 

( 3 ) Que “en la sentencia del Tribunal Superior Militar absol- 

viendo de responsabilidad k los autores de la ejecucidn, tal inten- 
tado” no fud alegado, “ni tampoco otro acto alguno especificado 6 
que se dice probado, que hubiera privado al difunto de la 


19— 


protecci6n de los Estados Unidos, mientras que por el contrario 
quedd probado por testiinonio no impugnado que constantemente 
demostr6 deseos de evitar toda conexidn con la revolucidn.” 

Con estos fundamentos el Bardn Blanc adjudicd la suma de 

$ 00 , 000 . 00 . 

Moore. Arbitrages Internacionales , Vol. Ill p. 3007. 


La Causa Etzel. 


En G de Junio de 1904, Lewis L. Etzel, un corresponsal de 
guerra, Americano, fud muerto por soldados chinos en Niuch- 
wang. El aeto de dar muerte & esta persona no fud premeditado 
ni intencional y los soldados cuando mds fueron solamente culpa- 
bles de negligencia criminal. Las autoridades chinas sentencia- 
ron al cabo que mandaba los soldados y les did drdenes para 
hacer fuego, & cinco aflos de prisidn, desaforaron al comandante 
del distrito que era el responsable de la disciplina que hizo posible 
la comisidn del delito, y ofrecieron & la familia del difunto, en es- 
piritu de amistad, la suma de $25,000.00 Mexicanos. 

Esta suma fud aceptada en calidad de finiquito. 

Moore. Clasificacidji de Derecho International, Vol. VI , p. 765. 


La Causa Pears. 


Al anochecer del 31 de Enero de 1899, Frank Pears, ciudada- 
no de los Estados Unidos, fud muerto por un centinela en San 
Pedro, Honduras, mientras que pasaba entre su oficina y su casa. 
El centinela fud procesado por tribunal de investigacidn, declara- 
do no culpable y puesto en liber tad. Las pruebas hacen constar 
que Pears fud muerto en un lugar en que tenia derecho de estar; 


—20 


que no iba acompanado ni estaba de fuga; que estaba parado a la 
plena luz de un farol de calle y que se lehizofuegosolamente unos 
cuantos segundos despuds de darle el alto. El sefior Pears cuan- 
do se le hizo fuego avanzaba sobre el eentinela. El centinela no 
obro de acuerdo con los reglamentos inilitares de Honduras al 
verificar sus actos en este asunto. 

Los Estados Unidos declararon que bajo las circunstancias solo 
podia considerarse la muerte de Pears “como un asesinato cruel 
de un hombre indefenso que transitaba inocentemente entre su 
oficinay sucasa.” Los Estados Unidos por lo tanto demandaron 
la aprehensidn y castigo del centinela y el pago de una indemniza- 
cion de $10,000.00 oro 6, los parientes de Pears, cuya suma pos- 
teriormente pag6 el Gobierno de Honduras. 

Moore. Clarification de Derecho Internacional , Vol. VI p. 762. 


La Ca usa CampbeSI. 


En Abril de 1899, Bernard Campbell, ciudadano de los Estados 
Unidos, celebrd en New York un contrato para prestar sus servi- 
ces como ingeniero en un vapor en las Antillas. Suponia que sus 
servicios los habia de prestar abordo de un buque de la marina 
mercante- En 6sta inteligencia se embarco para las Antillas 
abordo del vapor “Clyde.” Cuando el “Clyde” llegd d Cabo Hay - 
tiano en 17 de Abril de 1899, el Almirante Copper y el Capit&n 
Compton de la Marina de Hayti abordaron el barco 6 informaron 
a Campbell que se esperaba que 61 sirviera abordo de un barco 
de guerra Haytiano que estaba anclado a poca distancia. Se neg6: 
se le amenazd de muerte, pero insistid en su negativa. Al dfa 
siguiente mientras esperaba en el muelle para tomar pasaje para 
Montecristo, en Santo Domingo, fue golpeado por soldados Hay- 
tianos y arrojado al mar. Por fin llegd otra vez & New York per- 
manentemente afectado en su salud. La presuncidn fue poderosa 
que el motivo del asalto sobre 61 fu6 su negativa de servir en la 
Marina de Hayti. 


— 21 — 


Los Estados Unidos mantuvieron que tenia el derecho a “una 
indemnizaci6n substancial. ” La causa fub transigida en Abril de 
1891 por un convenio por parte de Hayti para pagar & los Estados 
Unidos la suma de $10,000.00 oro. 

Moore. Clasificacion de Derecho International , Vol. VI . , p. 764. 


La Causa Vexaincourt. 


“En cuanto & la cuestibn de qub clase de actos de oficiales, 
administrativos, militares y navales tienen caracter de perjuicios 
internacionales puede establecerse como regia segura que los actos 
de tales subditos tienen caracter de delincuencias internacionales 
cuando son sometidos por el mismo estado 6 con su autorizacibn- 
Puede citarse un caso muy instructivo, como ilustracibn:” 

“En 26 de Septiembre de 1887, un soldado Alem&n queestaba 
de centinela en la frontera cerca de Vexaincourt hizo fuego desde 
el lado Aleman y matb & un individuo que se hallaba en territorio 
Francbs. Puesto que este acto fub violacion del dominio territo- 
rial francbs, Alemania lo denegb, dio satisfaccion y pagb & la viu- 
da la suma de 50,000 francos en calidad de perjuicios.” 

Oppenlieim , Derecho International , Vol. l,p. 209. 


La Causa de !a Escuadra Rusa de! Mar Baitico. 

En 24 de Octubre de 1904, durante la Guerra Ruso-Japonesa, 
la Escuadra Rusa del Mar B&ltico que estaba en camino hacia el 
extremo orient© hizo fuego sobre la flota de barcos de pesca de 
Hull que estaban pescando frente & Dogger Bank en el Mar Nor- 
te. Como resultado del fuego murieron dos Pescadores y se hizo 
daiio considerable & las rastras. La Gran Bretana demando & 



— 22 — 


Rusia no tan solo una justificacion y amplios perjuieios, si no 
tambibn el castigo severo del olicial responsable del ultra je. Pues- 
to que Rusia mantuvo que el hacer fuego sobre la liota pescadora 
se debi6 a la aproximacion de algunos torpederos Japoneses y que 
por lo tan to no podia castigar al oficial que mandaba, las partes 
convinieron nombrar una comisibn internacional de investiga- 
cion, el cual sin embargo estaba autorizado no tan solo para averi* 
guar los hechos del incidente, sino tambien para emitir una opi- 
ni6n sobre la responsabilidad de lo acontecido y el grado de 
responsabilidad de las personas responsables. 

La comisibn consistib de cinco oficiales n a vales de alta catego- 
rla, & saber; un Ingibs, un Ruso, un Americano, un Prancbs y un 
Austriaco, y celebrb sus sesiones en Paris en Febrero de 1905. 
El informe de la comisibn dice que no habian estado en el lugar 
ningunos torpederos; que el hacer fuego la escuadra del B&ltico 
no fub justificado; que el Almirante Rojdestvensky, que mandaba 
la Escuadra del Baltico era el responsable del incidente, pero que 
estos hechos “no eran de caricter para desacreditar & las dotes 
militares ni humanitarios del Almirante Rojdestvensky ni del 
personal de su Escuadra. ’’ 

En consecuencia de la ultima parte de este informe la Gran 
Bretafia no pudo insistir sobre ningun castigo que se diei'a al 
Almirante Ruso responsable, pero Rusia pagb la cantidad de 
£ 65,000 para indemnificar & las vlctimas del incidente y & las fa- 
milias de los dos Pescadores muertos. 

Oppenheim , Derecho Inter national, Vol. II , p. 7. 



LIBRARY OF CONGRESS 




